Sorry. I should have been clearer. I was in a rush, but that's no excuse.
What I meant was that HUMANS all came from the same common ancestors- Adam and Eve.
As to the animals? God made each of them, according to their kinds.
Printable View
Sorry. I should have been clearer. I was in a rush, but that's no excuse.
What I meant was that HUMANS all came from the same common ancestors- Adam and Eve.
As to the animals? God made each of them, according to their kinds.
How do you differ from AP's suggestion then? He suggested thatand as far as I can see you are also saying that all species were created separately according to the creationist theory; humans came from one origin and other animals from different ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by AP
IMHO.......The story of Adam and Eve is, of course, only a fable, a tale used to relate the supposed seperation of humankind from their creator(s) and a convenient excuse to explain this ongoing treatment of humankind as pariah as far as the 'gods' are concerned....
.....All species, including man, have a common ancestor? Well sure!! I am naturally assuming, as an evolutionist, that you (whoever said it here first) mean the bacteria that formed in the oceans and on land, and progressed from there to form all living species on earth, these are our common roots, yes? Or are you only going back a blink in geologic time and promoting 'the missing link', the evolution of ape-like creature into homosapiens? *waits to get spanked for ASSUMING .........
Side note: Alexander Pope believed that all of life was a connected chain, and humans should be well aware of their position in that chain as a 'link', and not wish to be the masters of the domain............
I believe in evolution but not perhaps in the same way most people do. I cannot say that man evolved from ape because I personally have seen proof of that either way. I have however seen proof of animals evolving in order to adapt to their ever changing eviroment. Scientist have found those evolutions through bones and some are trying to show it through DNA. Also history shows that man too has evolve in appearance as well in order to adapt. I imagine though that both creation and evolution is true to a certain point.
Adelheid, what is it that makes you believe the Adam and Eve story?
I take it that you do not believe in the Adam and Eve story? If so then why not?Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
I take a look at this interesting and active thread from time to time.
Suddenly, tonight, I occurred to me to search for the position of Islam on the question of evolution. I have not yet found what I am looking for regarding Islam, but I did find this most interest post which tries to point out that, in the Bible, when the Red Sea is parted, it is very clearly stated that God does not say, by fiat, "let the sea be parted", after the same fashion that God says "Let there be light," but rather, God employs the instrumentality of a powerful east wind, acting during the course of an entire night. The point is that the Bible does not rule out physical process as a means for God to accomplish or fashion something, but leave open the possibility that physical and chemical processes over a long period of time will be the modality for God accomplishing the divine will.
Elsewhere, in the Bible, there is explicit mention of the role of physical elements in carrying out the divine will.
In the Psalms, there is a verse which reads, "Fire, hale, ice, snow, blasts of tempest, which perform His works" and "Praise him O sun and moon, praise Him O ye stars and lights, Praise him ye heavens of heavens, and thou waters that art above the heavens, praise the works of the Lord. For he spake and they came to be, he commanded and they were created. He established them forever, yea, forever and ever, and they shall not pass away." (I am paraphrasing from memory here, so pardon any slight inaccuracy).
I am also reminded of that striking passage in Isaiah which says (again, paraphrasing from memory), "Just as I send the rain and snow down from heaven to the earth, and it does not return to me until it has done its work, and brought about fruition, so too, I have sent forth my words (or Word), and it shall not return to me until its work is done."
http://www.rishon-rishon.com/archives/029201.php
God and Evolution
Quote:
Originally Posted by With A Powerful East Wind
http://bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.a...=21&portion=16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Exodus 14:21
Just a nitpick, but man didn't evolve from ape. Apes, Monkeys and Humans evolved from a common ancestor that was similar to all three in some manner. Thought I'd note it, since some more confused arguments pop up of "Why are there still apes around if we evolved from them" and it's more clear to just note it in this manner. Helps to picture evolution at times as a tree growing with branches and our species and the other primates come from the same trunk that eventually branched out into different spots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
heh, had to clear up what I read or it would've driven me nuts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Don't you think that it may be possible we evolved from a ape species that is no longer living in the world today? I am not saying I believe the theory but I cannot say I disbelieve it either until there is more scientific proof. Look how many kinds of apes and monkeys there are in the world as we know it. They say nothing is impossible until proven without a reason of doubt.
Yeah, I do think it's possible, seeing as it is technically happening right now since the species we evolved from no longer exists, as far as we can tell.
Doubt is fine, I was just clarifying a misconstrued idea presented. To fine tune your phrases: You believe or disbelieve in concepts, but you accept or reject theories. For instance; I can believe I'm able to fly, but I can simultaneously accept the theory/law that gravity won't let me fly without a plane or neat invention. Just like you can accept that evolution is correct, but withhold your beliefs in it being completely right until further proof is given. Having your cake and eating it, too..which works quite nicely. Even I don't accept evolution as absolutely true, since there is always the chance it was wrong all along, but I still accept it and support it as best I can until something manages to prove me wrong.
Whatever works though, just adding into the discussion with what I can think of at 1am.
This is proving to be a interesting subject.
Thanks for answering me and I am glad you are adding to the discussion. I feeling that evolving from apes can be possible but there is no direct proof out there to make be believe it a 100%. But it would be fascinating to see that proof though. Again thanks for your honesty it is so refreshing to see how many honest opinions here. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
There is no proof as such that we are evolved directly out of apes. However, there is proof that we share a common ancestor. We are, after all, more closely related to the chimpanzee than the chimpanzee itself is related to the other Great Apes (gorilla, etc.). We share 94.4 % of our DNA with the chimp: scientists estimate that the the common ancestor of chimps and humans branched off from the gorilla approximately 7 million years ago; the two species themselves diverged only between 5 million and 6 million years ago. Scientists are debating whether we should perhaps, after all, be classed along with the chimpanzee as "Great Apes". Or whether the chimpanzee should be classed as a "Homo" species. (Homo trogladytes instead of Pan trogladytes.)
Why would I? It's just a story in a book.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
All the scientific evidence contradicts it. And even if I wanted to believe a creation myth rather than the science, there are numerous others to choose from. With no empirical criteria to go on, why would I choose this one in particular?
Man had to originate from somewhere and I wonder if we can prove where our origins came due the evidence by now might not be around anymore. I have not heard of anyone other then Adam and Eve being the first humans. Of it is like answering the old question which came first the egg or the chicken. Thanks for answering me and I was curious about what you thought on the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
The story of Adam and Eve, if taken literally is fiction. Therefore creationism in the common definition is indeed unlikely to be true.
The symbolism it could represent however isn't as that is an integral part of Christian religion. Something that has been part and has influenced western civilization for the last two millennia. Whether you belief the symbolism is irrelevant. This symbolism is not confined to Christian religions. It is everywhere.
Evolution theory only works to a certain extent. Most of the knowledge we have now is based on deductive reasoning. It is al estimates, and the proof that we have is not definitive proof. An important rule in research is to question your results. Every new finding refines a theory, whether it is evolution or space technology.
The point is, the bible is thousands of years old. At the time people didn't have the knowledge we have now. They did not understand DNA, or RNA, or knew what a light bulb was. The story of Adam and Eve was their way of explaining their existence. There must have been a thousand and one different interpretations as to where humans come from. Most of them have died with the people that told them. But those that survived tell an interesting tale that spans thousands of years and chronicles mankind’s attempt to understand their existence. The tale is far from finished, but religion is no longer at the forefront and science has taken over this search.
Does this mean religion is no longer necessary? No, religion takes on a different mission today, but the major religions are only slowly becoming aware of this mission. Religion can provide great comfort for people. It can be a binding factor in a culture where everyone is becoming more detached. But that is not something for this topic.
Just my two (not so coherent) cent.
I totally agree with you there because there are thousands of new information being discovered every day. I think with anything in life you should take time out to re-examine it you may be surprised at what you find. Adam and Eve may be fiction or not which is something we may never know for sure but it is worth investigating.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
All Biblical scholars worth their salt know full well that the very first creature God created was this small, white, grumpy mouse with large ears and an evil grin, head tilted to one side. Then gradually over eons, all other life froms evolved from that primordial mouse creature.
(Dyrwen... this is what as known as comic relief)
:lol:
:wave:
:nod:
Fortunately, that grumpy, evil mouse possess a sense of humor.
Just last week, scientists at the famous Genome project annouced that they have detected traces of mouse DNA in all life forms.
We have squandered centuries discussing Adam and Eve, when all along, it was Mickey and Minnie, right under our noses!
It's been investigated pretty well since genetics was introduced. There has been no genetic similarity found in mankind's DNA that would make it partially related to everyone else on earth. That's basically all we have to look for, as far as Adam & Eve are concerned. We've mapped the human genome and know we're not all related, at least not to two people. Not to mention the whole carbon dating and radiometric dating discussion that happened awhile back pretty much also demonstrates our investigation into the amount of time mankind might've existed for Adam & Eve to work out plausibly.
I'm all for investigating things thoroughly, but when it comes to the "science" of the Bible, the most basic tenents of biology, geology, and physics took the Bible to school with their investigations once the teachings for popped up. Evolution continues to be fine tuned into a more and more probable theory, so much so that there isn't much disagreement over it in the scientific community outside of minor details that mean a lot. I really can't see how anyone is waiting for evidence of Adam & Eve, outside of the fact that they just want to wait for something that may never be found, therefore they won't ever have their beliefs proven wrong because there isn't any proof to be found. It's a circular thing, but I suppose when it's an important part of creation, it has to be held onto.
Personally, I tend to think like AimusSage with regards to religion in today's world. Just think of it this way: We weren't any smarter biologically 2000 years ago, but we've certainly become more aware of our surroundings, so the psychological intelligence over our collective society has increased a great deal more. I mean, really, they thought the earth was flat, that lightening was from Zeus (later, God), and floods happened because they did something wrong. A five year old in modern society has more intelligence than that line of reasoning, and considering that mindset wrote the holy text itself, some revision and sidesteps on what needs to be held onto is a good thing, as far as I can tell.
Just sort of ran aground on that thought process, since sage mentioned their ignorance to dna above.
Edit: Sitar, [Brain]Yes![/Brain] hehe
Since there were batteries along with indoor pluming during the time of Cesar I think we were not as ignorant was we think humans were back then. How can we judge intelligence based on today's technology? Evolution is not based on what we our mind is capable of doing in a certain time period. Human beings are constitantly changing and evolving every day whether we see it or not in ourselves. Isn't evolution physical, environmental, and mental changes within our world? If I have misunderstood do forgive me but it sounds like we are saying that evolution is defined as how intelligent we were back then.
You misunderstood, Technology evolves too. That does not mean that people were ignorant a thousand years ago. It simply means they were less technologically advanced. The level of technology does not define the intelligence. Do you know exactly how a computer works, down to the specifics? The fact that technology is here doesn't mean everyone understands it.
However, a lack of certain technology, that has given us a better insight in so many fields, means the explainations will be different. This has nothing to do with ignorance or lack of intelligence. It means the tools were not there to explain many things.
Sorry about misunderstanding you. It still makes me wonder what evolutional theories they had a thousand years ago. I cannot help but think we might not have had the need to explain things back then. I wish time travel were possible so I could just observe what really happened back then. Thanks for setting me straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by AimusSage
Has anyone here read the Science of Discworld, by Terry Pratchett and Co? IT actually gives a nice form of explanation/summarisation of earths creation, with added wit.
Just out of curiosity, but if each religion has their own theory about the creation of earth (and more) then how can it apply?
If i don't beleive in God, then how can he have been responsible for my creation?
Not to mention someone who beleives in a different creation theory. I think it's to simple to say, that some omnious force decided to create an earth with creatures on it, and i think it seems arrogant to believe that humans were created seperately from animals, and on the their own seperate day.
It is such a domineering concept, and i don't find it sufficiently plausible.
Yes Chava, that is one of the more pressing matters of creation, seeing as there are so many different creation myths and some of the more Judeo-roots of many of them make humanity out to be something special that is to be held above mere animals. Although I'm fairly sure a few of the eastern religions are more judicious in how we're "all" created at once, not just animals, then humans.
On your line of thought about arrogance, I always had a feeling that if there were a god, no one actually believes in that particular one. Everyone made up their own gods to fit their own needs, but the real god isn't needed for anything, because no one knows it existed. Basically taking a line from Futurama when God says, " If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all." It's a simple concept that god doesn't care about the world below in terms of whether we believe in it or not, because it still made everything in any case, but meanwhile everyone tries to follow a god they think actually did it, only to end up knowing it was always the wrong one. Sure there's an idea of god being believed in that fits the original's description, but they didn't know for sure it was this one in particular.
So from a probability standpoint, if there was a god out there, no one is actually believing in him, because there's a higher chance that they'd make up their own according to their needs and traditions, rather than be able to notice the real god just watching things happen. Although I suppose deists could fit under this belief concept in some manner. In any case, to your second question: Just because you don't believe in god doesn't mean there isn't a god responsible for your creation. I'm an atheist, mind you, but from a hypothetical standpoint that's the plain truth. From a silly casuality standpoint: Just because you were born and your parents weren't around, or you aren't even sure your parents were ever there, doesn't mean that they didn't still create you. (another hypothetical in the same theistic vein of creation, although obviously there is a big difference between parents and deities when things go back far enough, heh)
There are lots of creation myths, i.e. lots of different ideas in different religions about who were the first humans and how they came to be. If you're religious, which religion you subscribe to is largely a matter of which one you have been given the most exposure to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
As Dyrwen's posts indicate, there's plenty of evidence still around about where we actually came from.
The chances of finding DNA from Adam and Eve is highly unlikely that it could be tested today. Even if we find their DNA how would we prove the DNA is truly Adam and Eve's. Where would this evidence be located at and how you we know for sure, after all it still would be theory.
Even scientist themselves depend on God's creation and even have God in their lives. It is such a great contradict to your faith in God if you don't believe that God did every little existing thing. It's as simple as you believe your parents bore a child and that was you, but then the birth documents is not enough for you, but instead still looking for proofs. You know, sometimes we should have to put faith and believing first before you knew it at the end than believing that which is based on human knowledge although they were really intellectual,but God is GREAT.Believing that, its enough to proving we are His creation and not from any evolution.Besides, we are His highest form of creation and we ought to give thanks for that and not to use His given wisdom to screw the Ideals of creation. thanks for reading me!
Tiny explorer, no offence or anything, but why believe in the Christian god in particular? We could just as well believe in Zeus and Thor or any of the old mythologies. Or in any other religion existing today. Is Christianity any more relevant than any other religion?
The fact is, if you can believe something that only requires faith, you are stuck with the problem of which faith to choose; all of them are equally correct if having faith in something makes it 'real'. This problem is, of course, solved by your cultural background and upbringing - you are likely to inherit religious "memes" from your parents, grandparents, etc. If you come from a long line of Jews, then it's likely you will be a Jew. If you come from a long line of Christians...then would it surprise anyone if you were a Christian? My point is, no religion is "superior" or "more correct" or "going to save us more than any of the others". Religions are, like people, simply different.
It isn't about finding some random two people's DNA being the origin of all things. It's about the fact that if we descended from two people, then their original DNA would be easily spotted amongst our own DNA because it would be the one thing that surprisingly would be the same for all people. We'd all share that same gene, or at least a recessive trait of it somewhere in the DNA chain. They've yet to find any evidence of said DNA anomally and considering we have mapped the entire genome, if it isn't there, then we just aren't all related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
.......hmmmm......all of us here at the site.......related to each other................ *shudder*
I do not think that tiny explorer implied that his religion is superior or more correct. tiny explorer was stating that he believed his to be true and I did not get the impression tiny explorer was converting us. I came to the same faith as my parents only ten years ago and I do not practice my faith the same way they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I only brought up DNA to use as an example of proof I would require knowing full well that it would be impossible to do. Mitochondrial DNA is the only strand of DNA that can survive the longest in human remains. Therefore it would be impossible to determine Adams DNA at least. I honestly cannot say if all humans are related to each other but someone down the road could prove me wrong. There is always a possibility that my ideals are and I prefer to state if I am not a 100% correct anyone is welcome to prove me wrong. That is the only way I can learn.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyrwen
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought Tiny Explorer was implying that we shouldn't doubt Christianity, that faith is enough to prove that we are of God's creation. If this is so, then heaven must be pretty crowded by now by all the gods that have ever existed. The Greeks were created by the Greek gods, the Norse by the Norse gods, the Jews by the Jewish god, the Muslims by Allah, the Christians by God Almighty...and there are of course, many other religions in the world. There is soon chaos.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor
Which god is supreme? The one who has created or converted the most people?
That's just it. The Christian thing of "we are the best". "We are God's favourites" and "we shouldn't meddle with His intentions". We are no better than overgrown monkeys, full stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by tiny explorer
We now live in an era in which we are advanced enough technologically to see and analyse the evidence. It would be a very nice thing if people finally realised that material evidence is, after all, more plausible than an odd assortment of myths and legends.
But don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to say that it's ethically wrong to be a Christian. Just as long as Christianity allows scientists and atheists (as well as members of other religious cults) to be created by whom they choose. If they want to be made of stardust that is billions of years old...then why not? It is, after all, just as poetic as being created by a giant, bearded fellow with a rather odd sense of humour.
Loki
I noticed your signature Loki (Thank God I'm an atheist... ) are you truly a atheist? I was just curious and hope that I am not imposing on something that may be personal. For the longest time in my life I never believed in a higher being but now I do.Quote:
Perhaps I misunderstood. I thought Tiny Explorer was implying that we shouldn't doubt Christianity, that faith is enough to prove that we are of God's creation. If this is so, then heaven must be pretty crowded by now by all the gods that have ever existed. The Greeks were created by the Greek gods, the Norse by the Norse gods, the Jews by the Jewish god, the Muslims by Allah, the Christians by God Almighty...and there are of course, many other religions in the world. There is soon chaos.
Which god is supreme? The one who has created or converted the most
Yeah, I'm an atheist; I feel very lucky to have been brought up one. My parents are both atheists, though my mum loves the Zen philosophy (as I do myself). I have that as my signature because it's one of my favourite oxymorons.Quote:
I noticed your signature Loki (Thank God I'm an atheist... ) are you truly a atheist? I was just curious and hope that I am not imposing on something that may be personal. For the longest time in my life I never believed in a higher being but now I do.
Oh, thank you for answering me and I gather I was not being too personal for which I am glad of that.
Not at all. Me being an atheist was never meant to be any secret. :)
Has anyone else seen that Simpsons episode where Lisa finds what appears to be the skeleton of an angel and it is then worshipped by the people of the town? Lisa's really sure it must be a hoax, so she takes a sample of it to be tested in a lab. Homer's angry response: 'Facts! Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything even remotely true.' Then the scientist turns up and says the tests were 'inconclusive' and Reverend Lovejoy says 'Once again science falters before the proofs of religion.'
Anyway, in the end, the angel turns out to be a marketting gimmick to promote a new shopping centre.
And what changed your mind?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancestor